Thursday, January 13, 2011

Playing consensus politics with the left

Lawrence Auster has been posting a steady stream of excellent commentary on the Tucson shooting at VFR. One of these posts highlights a breakthrough moment by a mainstream conservative journalist. This journalist, Brit Hume, has come out and openly stated that the American left commonly considers disagreement with its politics to be motivated by hate:

It has become a habit of the American left to equate disagreement with liberals and liberalism with hate. So convinced do they seem of the virtue of their cause that the only possible explanation for resistance to it must be hatred.

Why is it significant that a mainstream conservative journalist has openly recognised this? Lawrence Auster goes on to explain as follows:

Of course you will find this kind of insight into the left's mindset at VFR all the time, but you will never hear it from mainstream conservatives. The reason you will never hear it from mainstream conservatives is that it borders on saying that the left is not a normal American political movement but a tyrannical ideological movement at war with conservatives and seeking their suppression; and if we acknowledge that the left is at war with us and seeking our suppression, then the American political system, based on consensus and shared loyalties, starts to break down, in which case mainstream conservatism itself, based on belief in that consensus, starts to break down. So for an establishment conservative like Hume to say what he said above represents a significant step toward the forbidden truth of contemporary politics.

It's a clear enough point. How can the right play consensus politics when the left views the right in such implacably hostile terms as being motivated by nothing more than hatred and bigotry?

One of the most visited left-wing websites is Daily Kos. Its founder, Markos Moulitsas, has written a book titled American Taliban which aims to show that:

the Republican Party, and the entire modern conservative movement is, in fact, very much like the Taliban. In their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban. The American Taliban ... share a litany of mores, values, and tactics with Islamic extremists.

Moulitsas admits that progressives hate conservatives:

Progressives hate the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists precisely for the same reason we hate rabid conservatives at home: their fear of change, their contempt for nontraditional lifestyles, their mania for militaristic solutions, and their fascistic efforts to impose their narrow worldview on the rest of society.

The thought of separation between "progressives" like himself and the conservatives he hates appeals to him:

I’m partial to ceding a portion of the Texas Panhandle to these wackos, naming it Dumbf--kistan, taking it off the federal dole, building a wall around it, and arresting anyone trying to enter America illegally. I can always dream.

Has Moulitsas correctly categorised the mainstream right here? No, of course he hasn't. Much of the mainstream right is right-liberal. In other words, much of the mainstream right shares the same underlying philosophical assumptions held by Moulitsas himself. That's one reason why mainstream politics has held together up to now.

But Moulitsas doesn't see it this way. He categorises "the Republican Party, and the entire modern conservative movement" as not only non-liberal, but as radically so. He believes that the entire modern conservative movement is to be equated with the current national enemy, the Taliban: the enemy the nation is at war with.

All of this fits with Lawrence Auster's description of leftism, as represented by the likes of Moulitsas, as being an "ideologicalmovement at war with conservatives and seeking their suppression".

Jesse, Fox News was the one who lied about the Jared Taylor and Amren angle.

If your pro-white anyone who hurts a friend is not your friend.

Fox News is Not Your Friend.

The goal of Fox News is to control the weak conservatives minds so they don't ever go off in to the 'unacceptable territory.'

Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe any of the stuff we believe. He doesn't believe immigration should be stopped, he doesn't believe that white christians create a special culture. He's a neocon and can't piss without neocons standing next to him to help.

The Sarah Palin 'blood libel' bullshit is just one more example of how we need to call out people for what they are.

The US is pre-1917 Russia all over again..with the white Christian population slated for removal.

Anyways, I am very upset over Queensland and the flooding. I wish you all well over there.

I hope that Abbott is using the flooding to his political advantage and says "Maybe it's time to take care of our own people who are hurting instead of worrying about refugees and immigrants"

The left is evil. They think destroying society is ''progress'' (and other disturbing concepts). They think neocons and right-liberals are traditional conservatives. They think that the annihilation of my racial identity is ''good'' and ''modern''. They are demons. It's time for a divorce I agree. Check out Lawrence Auster's plan about secession.

Much of the mainstream right is right-liberal. In other words, much of the mainstream right shares the same underlying philosophical assumptions held by Moulitsas himself. That's one reason why mainstream politics has held together up to now.

This is a key point.

Most so-called "right-wing" enthusiasts share the same liberal assumptions as their theoretical opponents on the "left-wing". The current consensus of educated opinion could be described as being a liberal spectrum where every politically aware person can find a hue that corresponds to a set of social and political beliefs. There is, so to speak, room within the spectrum for every subtle shade ranging from lurid red on the left to bright blue on the right.

This liberalism of both left and right produces one situation after another in which you can say what you like but the outcome will be the same.

Of course if any non-leftist were to make the same points that the Daily Kos has made about (ahem) "Dumbf**kistan", he would be tarred and feathered for allegedly advocating the greatest hate-crime in modern history: "apartheid."

But what the hell was so diabolically wrong with apartheid anyway? Moreover, how could it have been so satanic when, to a greater or lesser degree, everyone in every society practises it?

I am committing "apartheid" whenever I lock my front door against any loon who wants to break and enter. I am committing "apartheid" whenever I choose to worship with fellow Catholics on Sunday rather than moseying on down to the local mosque on Friday. I am committing "apartheid" whenever I have lunch with those whose politics and world-views I find broadly sympathetic, rather than being expected to share my victuals with some menopausal feminazi crone from the Melbourne Age's op-ed columns.

In every American city right now, the race boundaries - not least when it comes to so-called schooling - are as solidly in place as they ever were in 1950s Alabama. The only differences are that the boundaries are no longer legally enforced, and that in the 1950s Our Dusky Brethren had not yet discovered the pleasures of stealing whitey's taxes to pay for their own bastard children.

"Post-racial" (what a laugh!) South Africa today is simply what America will be tomorrow, and what Australia will be the day after that. You mightn't think this truth is agreeable. It really doesn't matter what you think.

The Fox News pathological lying over Tucson (even the Southern Poverty Law Center's hucksters have distanced themselves from Fox's more outrageous claims about the killer's "antisemitic" traits and about the "antisemitism" of American Renaissance) could be one of the best things which has ever happened to real, as opposed to Fox, conservatism.

Then again it could lead to the Oklahoma City syndrome all over again, whereby a sleazy and tyrannical president walloped in midterm elections uses a disaster as a Reichstag fire with which to stamp out all opposition even marginally to the right of Bob Dole. (Of course, Clinton didn't just use the OKC bombing; it is as certain as such things can ever be that he himself helped arrange it and that McVeigh was a stooge.)

Arnold, I don't agree with you on the OKC bombing. There are similar theories attached to most such events. Better for us to deal with politics as it exists in the open - there's enough there to go on.

''"Post-racial" (what a laugh!) South Africa today is simply what America will be tomorrow, and what Australia will be the day after that. You mightn't think this truth is agreeable. It really doesn't matter what you think.''

America tommorow will look more like Brazil according to Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance.

I am not sure what Mr. Richardson means apropos OKC. Does he mean (a) that there was no Clinton government plot to bring about the bombing, or (b) that there was no Clinton government plot after the bombing to deligitimize all real, as opposed to GOP, opposition to the regime, or (c) both (a) and (b), or (d) something else again?

One could, I suppose, argue (a) with a straight face, though it would require fairly preposterous naivety to do so.

To assert (b) is simply to lie, or to proclaim one's ignorance, since the Clinton regime gloated, then and afterwards, about its determination to wipe out (remember?) the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

"Better for us to deal with politics as it exists in the open," Mr. Richardson writes. I remain uncertain as to what the practical implications of Mr. Richardson's advice are. Do they involve, for instance, telling the Poles whose relatives were foully murdered by the Soviet baboons at Katyn that the subsequent campaigns of global deceit, as well as the initial barbarism, do not matter? That the deceit which has made America an Israeli client state since the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty ship does not matter? That decades of frenzied academic and gutter-journalistic libels upon Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, Verwoerd, Ian Smith, and every other leader who dared to fight the left by other than Queensberry Rules do not matter?

If this is indeed the case, then I can only assume that Mr. Richardson and I inhabit different moral universes. Mr. Richardson is welcome to his. I prefer to dwell in the one where Solzhenitsyn warned: "Live not by lies."

Meanwhile, the following article about "agents provocateurs" has some interesting information about OKC:

I'm not convinced that America's future is to be Brazilianized. That would be altogether too much to hope for, given that racial consciousness in Brazil generally has been a much weaker thing than it is in the States, and than it was in the States even before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 institutionalized a Third World privilegentsia forever screaming about its "rights").

Russell:"I'm not convinced that America's future is to be Brazilianized. That would be altogether too much to hope for, given that racial consciousness in Brazil generally has been a much weaker thing than it is in the States, and than it was in the States even before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 institutionalized a Third World privilegentsia forever screaming about its "rights")."

I agree - Brazilian whites are in a much better position than US whites are. The system is mostly not institutionally anti-white, and southern Brazil is quite safe for whites and likely to remain so.

Australia is in a much better position than the US; if most non-European immigration were ended then Australia can still survive as a civilised country, despite the anti-white discrimination. This is questionable for America; and South Africa has been a Third World nation for awhile now.

"ideological movement at war with conservatives and seeking their suppression".

I never realised just how true this was until the recent shooting and the left's reaction to it.

I was watching the reports from all over the world and suddenly everything just clicked into place.

These people have trained themselves to simply ignore any reality that does not fit in their ideology. I always thought that they simply wanted to beat those against them into submission, but they seriously believe that anyone who disagrees with them does not deserve to exist.

It was so obvious all along, but the right-liberal left-liberal theatre show fooled me, and still fools most people I know.

Mate, I do not have to like Jared Taylor simply because I am proud of my heritage and would like it to continue.

""southern Brazil is quite safe for whites and likely to remain so.""

True, but they have begun "Anti-racist" indoctrination in the schools of the southernmost majority european areas in order to brainwash self hate into the community, this seems mostly to be because of the central government's fears of a breakaway state [which are greatly overstated].